Stockies and part-timers have a tough time

The stock bowlers in a 50-over match always get the job done by finishing a stock of eight (or so) overs. The part-timers always provide an element of surprise by a series of dot-balls or a freak wicket. But in the T20 World Championship, the stockies and part-timers have had a tough time, getting smashed, predictably, by established frontline batsmen or brawny hitters who get an eye in. Look at this table.

Economy rates over or near 10 have been highlighted. Not surprisingly, Malik (only three overs), Afridi and the South African stock bowlers (some of them make the team on their bowling alone, and are not mere fill-in bowlers) save the day, but the others have been hammered around. Even Sanath, who had decent figures overall, was taken apart in a match against Pakistan for most runs in four overs. The effect is even more pronounced in case of part-time bowlers, with all bar three going for over nine or ten an over. Is this the case of average 50-over bowlers getting shown up in an even shorter format?

"Talent is nothing without opportunity"
"You're not remembered for aiming at the target, but hitting it"

Is this the case of average 50-over bowlers getting shown up in an even shorter format?

Yes I think so.

I expected it personally, the part-timers and bits and pieces bowlers being effective in domestic cricket at times is more because of the lack of quality in the batting combined with cricket bat technology.

Nowadays if you dob the ball there for them and they can line it up and hit it, it'll clear the boundary more often than not. You have to be able to do something that'll make it difficult for the batsmen.

The reason is that part timers wil usually bowl in the middle overs of an ODI, so generally they will get milked around for 4/5/6 runs an over, without the batsmen taking too many risks. Whereas in a T20 innings, there is generally no time where the batsman will try and consolidate, unless there are loads of wickets fallen, in which there will be a strike bowler bowling to try and blow the order out.

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

1) Had double pneumonia as a kid, as did my twin sis. Doctors told my parents to pray that we lived through the night. Dad said **** off, I'm an atheist, you ****s better save my kids, etc. Then prayed anyway.

Graham Smith and Virender Sehwag have both only bowl an over each, and Jehan Mubarak has only bowled two balls. You can hardly make a fair analysis with data such as this.

That one over by Sehwag could have cost the Indian team the semi-final. Four dreadful Sanath overs, his reputation as a stock bowler notwithstanding, did cost the Lankans an entry to the semi-finals. With just four overs per bowler and a full twenty, a bad over shows up, and how.

That one over by Sehwag could have cost the Indian team the semi-final. Four dreadful Sanath overs, his reputation as a stock bowler notwithstanding, did cost the Lankans an entry to the semi-finals. With just four overs per bowler and a full twenty, a bad over shows up, and how.

How is this relevant? It's not. 1 over isn't enough to judge a bowler on.

That one over by Sehwag could have cost the Indian team the semi-final. Four dreadful Sanath overs, his reputation as a stock bowler notwithstanding, did cost the Lankans an entry to the semi-finals. With just four overs per bowler and a full twenty, a bad over shows up, and how.

One over can obviously be very important in the context of a match. But regardless of the format, two or three overs is hardly a good enough sample size to judge how good a bowler actually is or will perform over a longer time. You can make a judgement on how successful he has been so far, obviously, but you can't use it as an accurate judgement to state his ability.

Recognition of Property Rights in material objects is the recognition of a man’s right to exist; his right to pursue his own goals in his own manner at his own discretion with what is rightfully his to command. Just as the Right to Life is the right to the property of one’s own person, so the right to own material products is the right to sustain one’s life and to keep the results of one’s own efforts.

You're not supposed to be judging a bowler on one over, that is obviously pointless. You're supposed to be judging a certain group of bowlers as a whole.

Never thought I'd say this but...I agree with Scaly. There's a first time for everything.

Stockies and part timers on the whole have struggled. Sure there could be a few that will have success. Chris Harris springs to mind in our domestic 20/20. On the whole though they have and quite possibly will continue to struggle.

Originally Posted by Athlai

Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.

Originally Posted by Athlai

Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.

You're not supposed to be judging a bowler on one over, that is obviously pointless. You're supposed to be judging a certain group of bowlers as a whole.

But the performances of bowlers like Smith, Sehwag and Mubarak can't be assessed fairly, whether on an individual basis or within a certain group of bowlers, that's the point. I agree with your sentiments, but I disagree with how an over (2 balls in Mubarak's case) can be used to strengthen your argument, because those bowlers haven't been given enough chances.